Sri Ramakrishna Math : The Vedanta Kesari, July 2003

_A man wanted to return to India from Lanka. Vibhishana tied at the hem of his cloth a piece of paper on which a mantra was written, and asked him to take up his journey by walk on water. The man walked on the water up to a certain distance easily. But he grew inquisitive to know what the mystic syllable written on the piece of paper was. He unfolded it and saw the mere name of Rama written there. As soon as a doubt in the power of Rama's name arose, he was drowned in the sea. It seems such is the case with all doubting minds. To count the varieties of doubts that arise in one's mind is to count all the thoughts of the mind. Most of our thoughts are plagued with doubts--some are just, some unjust. It is the unjust kind of doubts that are the cause of misery in our life.

In Sanskrit doubt is called Samshaya. Samshaya means a doubt about the nature of a thing in general, and about the existence of a thing in particular. Suppose in twilight I see a thing at a distance. My doubt may be: whether that is a stump of a tree or a man. This doubt is not harmful for it goads me to take up further inquiry into the nature of the thing. The scriptures say that doubt (Samshaya or Asambhâvanâ, i.e., improbability) is of two kinds: one is about the authority of knowledge to stand as Pramâna (testimony) and the other, about the object of knowledge (Prameya). The doubt relating to Pramâna may be in the form of 'which path of disciplines should one follow to reach the goal', 'whether the Vedantic texts stand as a testimony to Brahman or they prove something else', etc. On the other hand, the doubt relating to Prameya may be in the forms of: 'Whether Buddhi is Atman or something else is. Which one is true of these two propositions--Jiva and Brahman are one; and Jiva and Brahman are eternally separate. Whether there is a Brahman, which can be known by the senses.'

But the doubt (vichikitsâ) Nachiketa expresses in the Kathopanishad is a different kind of doubt. He says that people doubt the very existence of the thing: 'Some say that the Atman, after the death of the body, abides, some say it does not.' From the story, it does not seem likely that Nachiketa had this doubt himself. Nachiketa alludes to a doubt that remains a riddle for the ordinary sense-bound people, who doubt the very existence of Atman after the death of the body. This doubt can be included in the Prameya-type of doubts, because it speaks of indecisiveness about the object (Prameya). The idea can be understood by an example: Suppose I want to go to a doctor. I may have a doubt, whether or not this road leads to the doctor's chamber (Pramânagata Samshaya). I may also have doubts: whether the doctor is competent to cure my disease or even, whether there is a doctor as such (Prameyagata Samshaya). The last type, since it doubts the very existence of the doctor in question, is a very serious doubt. Because, in the case of our question about knowing our own being, it leads to doubting our own existence, which is a ridiculous doubt. We lose ourselves--the doubters themselves. The Taittiriya Upanishad alludes to the outcome of such a doubt: asad-brahmeti veda chet, if anybody knows Brahman to be non-existent, asanneva sa bhavati, that person becomes nobody!

(i) Facing the reality of life as such, we feel desperate and concerned about the unresolved question of what will happen to us at the end. Hopelessness looms large. The just anxiety suffocates our life so much that we fail to concentrate on the immediate. Nachiketa alludes to this remarkable obsession in human mind which he calls vichikitsâ or doubt. We have referred to this in the definition above.

(ii) At times we encounter situations which present bewildering pictures to us. We do not know how to meet the challenges. Then alternatives keep on presenting before our mind. At this opportune moment our own doubts come to the surface with the obsession of 'What if?'. Uncertainty follows, and we fall into the old ruts of compulsive rituals and steadily-developed behavioural patterns, failing to face it independently and with our inner grit.

(iii) Sometimes I may feel that my friend is not speaking the whole truth, i.e., he/she is dishonest. Even if s/he knows certain facts s/he is not telling me. This is a doubt based upon the spoken words of the friend. Or, I may feel that my friend bears hatred towards me. I doubt his/her sincerity of purpose at every joint-venture. This doubt is based on my imagination. These are cases of doubting the integrity of my friend. These are not based upon facts. If it were so, there would have been no doubt about it. But my conjecturing a lie in my friend's words or insincerity in his/her behaviour, is a doubt which is unjust. In respect of our relationship it breeds misunderstanding and finally leads to ending of friendship and mutual ties. Well, I may have every right to have such doubts at my own cost. But when I take undue liberty to express these doubts to the friend with the help of sweetened innuendoes, I prove myself to be immature. 'Maturity' (to borrow from Stephen Covey's definition,) is a balance between the 'courage' about my feelings and 'consideration' for others' feelings. So I become undependable in the eye of the friend. Further, this cruel act hurts the friend so much that no amount of my compensatory friendly gestures or acts would patch up this wound.

In the life of a spiritual aspirant it is an obstacle, or, God forbid, it might describe our futile labour in outgrowing the limits of mind and growing spiritually. Sri Ramakrishna compares this phenomenon with the fate of those who labour hard to row a boat when it is anchored or of the reservoir with rat-holes through which all water that one tries to store is drained out.

Doubts are pathological. Many of us live with this 'doubting disease' without being aware of it. Some doubts are a neurological or mental disease termed Obsessive- Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Apart from our own disposition, the environment in which we are raised is also a great contributor to the formation of this disorder. It is called a disorder because a doubt hardly sees the positive side of anything or any person. To arrive at a conclusion finally, a doubting mind depends heavily upon the negative aspect of it. Unfortunately, if such a disease is nurtured without being aware of its ill effects, it makes a person cynical. They say, conventional psychotherapy is 'notoriously ineffective' with such a disease.

'What if?' is one of the questions asked by the doubting mind--in respect of both Pramâna and Prameya. That mind is a weak mind, which does not dare to take even a little amount of risk. Risk-free responsibility is a farce. 'What if?' is not, in fact, a harmful doubt. Rather it helps us to take preventive steps. But if it becomes an impediment to enterprise, then it is not only a doubt but also a fear born out of doubts. So those who go on nurturing their doubts are non-starters. They live a miserable life with the obsession of the question 'What if?'.

If only we could know for sure that the imaginary suggestions should not be tolerated for long! But the fundamental disorder in us will not help us to know it for certain. On the other hand, the disorder cannot tolerate uncertainty. Then it compels us to take recourse to the formation of some behavioural patterns, as, for example, people going on washing hands again and again to get rid of the doubts regarding contamination. They check the padlock four times after it has been securely locked, and finally leave it unlocked. In this way, a satisfactory ritualistic practice is formed.

Things become complicated and complex slowly until they take another shape to stop all doubts. We start believing in contrary things doubtlessly. In the scriptures there is an expression Viparita-bhâvanâ or contrary knowledge that is born of these doubts. Untruth becomes truth, unreality becomes reality, and uncertainty becomes certainty. The result is, as the scriptures say: asad eva idam agra âsit, [some assert that] it was 'non-existence alone' that existed before. Does it take long before one discovers the fallacy in the expression 'non-existence existed'?

Similarly, in the contex of our behaviour in the world, it is our (bitter?) experience that people doubt the truth in other's words, the sincerity in other's behaviour. And based on these speculative doubts they conclude that the other person has no integrity. The mind surrenders to the sway of Viparita-bhâvanâ. Sri Krishna says that for these people there is no happiness in this world or in the other.

First, as we have discussed, the question of 'What if?' arises only when we doubt the efficacy of the means (pramâna). This problem can be solved by generating a sense of certainty in our mind. Certainty is born out of Shravana. Technically, the definition of Shravana is: 'The discovery of the true significance of the identity of the individual self and the Supreme Self with the aid of the great sayings (like Tattvamasi).' The message imparted through this definition is that one should gather proper information about one's goal, and take opinion from the experts in the field. In this way all our doubts about the undertaking can be resolved to a great extent and our ambivalence or uncertainty about it is eliminated. This exercise will give rise to pramânagatâ shraddhâ, which will mean in this context, 'faith in the words of the Guru and the scriptures'. Undecided about planning crucial moves people go to the experts for counselling. Similarly, in spiritual life the aspirants depend on the counselling of the Guru and the scriptures. Narendranath (later Swami Vivekananda) went to Sri Ramakrishna to get the answer to his burning question: 'Sir, have you seen God?' Sri Ramakrishna's instantaneous answer blew out the questioning disbelief from Narendra's mind: 'YES, I have seen God. I see Him as I see you here, only more clearly.'

The second point is that a doubting mind is not always a deformed mind. There are some just doubts also. Sir W. Hamilton said, 'Doubt is the beginning and the end of our efforts to know.' Such a doubt is a questioning doubt of a formative mind, which leads to the transformation of it. Sri Ramakrishna asked the Divine Mother, 'Mother, if you are real, then why don't you reveal yourself to me?' This childlike demand is a sample of the earnestness of a questioning mind writ large. The scriptures advise us to practise innocent shraddhâ (faith of a child): 'Vatsa, shraddhatsva, O my dear, have faith.' Here, shraddhâ has been understood as 'conviction about the existence of something', prameyagatâ shraddhâ. This Shraddhâ is generated by Manana, which means: 'To arrive at the validity of the truth about our goal through logical reasoning.' It is like being sure about the benefits that the goal offers, by generating intellectual conviction about the goal (prameya) through reasoning. By this process we can get rid of the doubts about the Prameya.

Thirdly, and interestingly also, to liberate us from the torments of the doubts of uncertainty (like washing hands a fixed number of times, etc) the scriptures are ready with the do's and don'ts in the form of rules, rituals and traditions. Though it is true that all of us want freedom to take our decision, such people find a sense of certainty in compulsive rules and rituals. Particularly, taking into account the myriad types of moral dilemma that we face in life, the Purânas present innumerable critical and dramatic situations and their solutions, and thereafter an analysis on why a moral dilemma has been solved in that way. The question remains, 'Will the scriptures help us to face all peculiar situations?' Certainly not. But, as the scriptural injunctions and rituals are based on the positive aspects of critical situations, if we had followed them so far, they would have helped us develop a positive frame of mind to judge our problems.

Fourthly, the Viparita-bhâvanâ is done away with by Nididhyâsana. The definition of Nididhyâsana is: 'When by Shravana and Manana the mind develops a firm and undoubted conviction, and dwells constantly on the Self alone, it is called unbroken meditation.' Nididhyâsana helps us to register a big paradigm shift--it confirms our own reality and, along with it, the inherent power of our goodness. Swamiji discussed this point in the second chapter of Raja Yoga under the subhead The First Steps. He says that once one commences following the course to the goal one will start experiencing the result bit by bit. Then it will inspire him or her to go forward with interest and one-pointed determination.

The doubt in the form of disbelieving others' integrity is the result of Viparita-bhâvanâ, and can be overcome by the practice of belief in the strength of our own goodness. The Holy Mother Sri Sarada Devi faced a horrible situation when she encountered the dacoit couple in a vast lonely field in the night. She did not have any doubt that she was pure; hence she did not doubt the innate goodness of humans, whether they are fallen as dacoits (like Amjad) or risen as saints (like Swami Saradananda). Tennyson writes aptly, 'I doubt not that however changed, you keep so much of what is graceful.' The Holy Mother held the dacoit lady by the hand and asked for help. We know how the dacoit couple helped the Mother to reach her companions, safely. They became immortally related to the Mother ever since. This is a great lesson for the parents, and teachers in all fields. Once we highlight the goodness in the students, they are bound to be cast in a good mould. In olden days the gurus used to highlight the positive aspects of anything about the disciples and their work, and thereby inspire them. They even would be happy seeing the disciples outshine their (the gurus') excellences--a very 'easier said than done' example for some gurus in the present day.

We would do well to keep it in mind that the essence of all doubts is injury to one's own self at the first instance, and to others, at the second. It is like a double-edged sword, which not only harms the victims mentally, but also kills the perpetrators both mentally and spiritually. Doubts are expressions of our own insufficiency in that respect. It is a paradigm of ours through which we express our inner built. We want the world to be as we see. This is not the reality about an objective truth. That is why the scriptures say that a doubting mind perishes (samshayâtmâ vinashyati).

Well, Nachiketa had with him the great god Yama, and Narendranath had Sri Ramakrishna, to help them. But what will be our fate? 'We will follow their example, and try to imbibe their spirit,' is the answer. The number of examples can be increased at will as the world is filled with many such great ones.